On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Xavier Gnata <xavier.gnata@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > IMHO 2.0 should support python3.
> > That would be a major step and a good reason to call it 2.0.
>> I agree with Travis, I think we should try not to attach too much
> importance to the big number change, release 2.0 just taking care of
>
Sounds to me like you don't fully agree w/ Travis - he said "This is exactly
what I was worried about with calling the next release 2.0." Seems that
Travis understands that the larger community, whether we want them to or
not, _does_ "attach...much importance to [a] big number change" and wants to
avoid calling the next release 2.0 precisely because he recognizes that the
changes we do think we can make in three weeks don't warrant that magnitude
of a number change. But then, perhaps I shouldn't speak for Travis, sorry
Travis. ;-)
DG
> the ABI compatibility with the usual feature-freeze for an upcoming
> release, and then we can release 3.0 with any major additions in due
> course, as the work gets done. Basically, the '2.0' label does not
> mean that there's open-season for feature changes at this point - that
> has to wait, if the release is going to be stable.
>> Best,
>> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org>http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100213/4cc33568/attachment.html